The World Bank has quietly set up or fast-tracked crisis finance options for 27 countries since the Iran war began, and officials from Washington to Nairobi and Baghdad are watching how quickly those resources can be used. World Bank President Ajay Banga has outlined a toolkit meant to unlock tens of billions of dollars, while leaders in Kenya and Iraq are already lining up for help to blunt energy and revenue shocks. The International Monetary Fund and experts including Kristalina Georgieva and Kevin Gallagher have weighed in on who might tap these funds and why nations are cautious about formal requests.

The move follows the outbreak of conflict on February 28, which disrupted energy flows and global supply chains and blocked fertilizer shipments that many developing countries rely on. Facing surging fuel bills and collapsing oil receipts, some governments need fast cash to prevent economic chaos. The World Bank’s internal note, seen by reporters, says 27 countries are advancing instruments that would let them quickly pull financing from existing programs if a crisis deepens.

That document doesn’t list the countries or spell out dollar amounts, but it does map a broader preparedness effort: 101 nations already have access to pre-arranged financing tools, and 54 of those signed up to the Rapid Response Option. That option lets countries tap as much as 10% of their undisbursed financing, creating a short-term bridge without waiting for lengthy approvals. Three countries, the paper shows, have pushed through new instruments since fighting began; the rest are finishing the setup.

Ajay Banga has been public about how the bank can respond. He told partners the institution could marshal $20 billion to $25 billion from contingent financing and quick-disbursing tools right away, then reorient portfolios to raise that figure toward $60 billion over six months. With deeper changes to lending plans, the bank could potentially scale support further, aiming for a much larger total if global pressures keep mounting. That framing was meant to reassure fragile borrowers that help exists while still relying on existing program architecture.

Not every country is rushing in. “Countries are definitely in wait-and-see mode,” said one of ​the sources, ⁠who spoke on condition of anonymity. Officials want to know how fast funds will arrive, what conditions might come attached, and whether using World Bank credit would trigger domestic politics. The IMF’s Kristalina Georgieva had predicted up to a dozen countries might ask the global lender for $20 billion to $50 billion in the near term, but so far formal requests have been thin.

Part of the hesitation comes down to strings. Kevin Gallagher, director of the Global Development Policy Center at Boston University, pointed out that governments often prefer World Bank mechanisms to IMF programs because IMF loans commonly require austerity measures. Those tightening steps can fuel unrest in places already squeezed by higher prices and lost revenue, making leaders wary of aggressive stabilization programs on top of existing tensions.

Kenya and Iraq have both confirmed they are looking to the World Bank for faster support. In Kenya’s case, skyrocketing fuel costs have pushed up transport and food prices, hitting poor households and stoking political risk. For Iraq, a sudden drop in oil revenue has hollowed out public finances, creating an urgent need for balance-of-payments help while demands for public services continue.

Analysts say the World Bank’s approach — relying on pre-arranged tools and flexible use of project funds — is designed to be less disruptive than full-blown conditional programs. That flexibility could let countries move quickly without committing to long-term policy packages that are unpopular at home. Still, unlocking large sums quickly requires both clear procedures and political will, inside borrowing governments and within the bank itself.

The broader picture is one of cautious preparation: multilateral institutions have signaled they can offer significant resources, but many governments remain reluctant to be first in line. The war’s ripple effects on energy and food prices keep the risk high, and the next few months will show whether more countries convert readiness into formal requests. Observers in Washington, Nairobi and Baghdad will be watching for those firings of the safety net as economies feel the squeeze.